[ezatnova]

Originally Posted by Tony

Where did you get this from? You mean to tell me that the porsche 911 Turbo engine doesn't have a good feel? And what about the Bugatti Veyron? 0-60 in 2.5 seconds and is the fastest production car ever (power everywhere in the rev range). Which NA engines do you feel have a better "feel and response" than the cars just mentioned?

I'd rather have a light weight turbo engine than some large, heavy, gas guzzling V8 (or 6 cylinder).

I don't think that's exactly what he's saying. It's not that there aren't a ton of great turbo engines around, with a "great feel", but, the VAST majority have a turbo feel to them. A sling-shot effect, with at least some turbo lag, then WHAM, off you go.

But, with this engine and the reviews it's getting, I think this may be a groundbreaking car for a "non-turbo" feeling turbo car. I can't wait to feel what it's like flooring it at 1300 rpm for the first time and actually going somewhere! If I did that in my WRX, the car would rumble around a lot in protest, then 10 seconds or so later, around 2800 rpm, I'd start hustling. Such strong ultra-low end response has always been reserved for the V-8 boys.

[whippersnapper]

Originally Posted by Tony

Nope, I prefer the turbo engine. Better fuel economy, less weight than a “300bhp 3.5 liter ". We already know what a 3.5 liter 6 cylinder engine will do (Infiniti G35/Lexus IS350). And besides where would BMW go after the 3.5 liter inline 6? A 4.0liter V8 for the 3-series? You can only get so much out of a 3.0/3.5 liter engine without destroying its everyday drivability. Turbos are the future.

Also, Turbo lag is a relative term. You say that all turbo cars have turbo lag but even while the car is “off” the turbo it will still accelerate better than cars that don’t have a turbo or turbo lag. Case and Point; if you were to remove the turbos from a Porsche 911 turbo, the car in essence will be in a permanent “turbo lag” state. Even without the Turbo the Porsche will still out perform (in every gear at all revs) a 330i which is a car that doesn’t have Turbo lag. Go figure? Its okay to not like Turbos but the “Turbo Lag” Argument is weak (at least in the case of the 335i)

Tony, do you not know that turbo charged engines have a lower compression ratio than NA engines since detonation needs to be controlled when the car is "on boost", so a turbo car without a turbo isn't the same as a NA engine

[whippersnapper]

Originally Posted by Tony

Nope, I prefer the turbo engine. Better fuel economy, less weight than a “300bhp 3.5 liter ". We already know what a 3.5 liter 6 cylinder engine will do (Infiniti G35/Lexus IS350). And besides where would BMW go after the 3.5 liter inline 6? A 4.0liter V8 for the 3-series? You can only get so much out of a 3.0/3.5 liter engine without destroying its everyday drivability. Turbos are the future.

Fuel economy is not that important in a sports sedan, so that is weak argument. Are people who buy S4 Audi's concerned about that or do they want the stonking V8?

Performance roughly scales with capacity so a 3.5l version of the current engine would produce roughly 298bhp in the same state of tune as the current engine.

[whippersnapper]

Originally Posted by Tony

Where did you get this from? You mean to tell me that the porsche 911 Turbo engine doesn't have a good feel? And what about the Bugatti Veyron? 0-60 in 2.5 seconds and is the fastest production car ever (power everywhere in the rev range). Which NA engines do you feel have a better "feel and response" than the cars just mentioned?

I'd rather have a light weight turbo engine than some large, heavy, gas guzzling V8 (or 6 cylinder).

Ask any enthusiast which engine is better the 911 Turbo or the GT3. The Veyron is an answer to a question no-one ever asked. The Bugatti had 4 turbochargers, that make you happier?

No the very best engines in the world are all naturally aspirated, the BMW M engines, the classic V8 and V12 Ferrari / Maserati engines, the ones from Posche etc...

Don't confuse "best" with "bhp". My G35 engine has a lot more power and torque than a 330 but it is rough and coarse by comparison tot he BMW and tapers off too quickly at the top end.

As for weight, well you wouldn't have the weight of 2 turbo chargers and an intercooler for starters with "my" 3.5l engine

[Tony]

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

Fuel economy is not that important in a sports sedan,

Why isn't it? BMW seems to think so or they wouldn't be mentioning the Turbos increased Fuel economy. Given the choice between two equal performing engines I would choose the engine with better fuel economy.

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

Performance roughly scales with capacity so a 3.5l version of the current engine would produce roughly 298bhp in the same state of tune as the current engine.

I agree but the 3.5 liter engine will be much heavier and the more power you put into a NA engine (of the same size)the less driveable it becomes (read: all the power up top and revs are required to get the thing going) Low-End Torque suffers.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

Tony, do you not know that turbo charged engines have a lower compression ratio than NA engines since detonation needs to be controlled when the car is "on boost", so a turbo car without a turbo isn't the same as a NA engine

I agree, but I would think that a 335I even with the turbos removed would still be able to outperform a 325i (a car that doesn't have Turbo Lag). The point I'm trying to make is that "Turbo Lag" is a relative term.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

Don't confuse "best" with "bhp". My G35 engine has a lot more power and torque than a 330 but it is rough and coarse by comparison tot he BMW and tapers off too quickly at the top end.

If BMW were to increase the 3.0l power output to the G35 levels then the power characteristics would be about the same. That's the type of engine that some folks here would rather have but not me.

[Insider]

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

Tony, do you not know that turbo charged engines have a lower compression ratio than NA engines since detonation needs to be controlled when the car is "on boost", so a turbo car without a turbo isn't the same as a NA engine

Yes, but the CR on the 335 is higher than a lot of normally aspirated engines due to the direct fuel injection. So the 335 has lots of power even before the turbos kick in.

[whippersnapper]

Originally Posted by Tony

I agree but the 3.5 liter engine will be much heavier and the more power you put into a NA engine (of the same size)the less driveable it becomes (read: all the power up top and revs are required to get the thing going) Low-End Torque suffers.

Why will it be heavier? 3.5l is bigger than 3l so without changes to other elements of its tune it will be more driveable than the current engine whilst being more powerful with mnore lowend torque

[whippersnapper]

Originally Posted by Tony

If BMW were to increase the 3.0l power output to the G35 levels then the power characteristics would be about the same. That's the type of engine that some folks here would rather have but not me.

Don't misrepresent what I said. In earlier posts you were talking up turbo engines simply because they were powerful. A 3.5l version of the N52 would not have the same power delivery as a G35.

In summary your arguments are not consistent and don't make any sense. If you want to have another go try again.

You need to refute the following:

1) The best normally aspirated engines (BMW 6 as an example) are lauded in part because of the characteristics associated with them in terms of engine response and feel etc... i.e the things that matter to true enthusiasts

2) A 3.5l version of the current engine would produce the same peak horsepower with a better response and feel (not to mention the return of the classic 3.5l six) without the need for more high performance tuning as the 335i engine.

After all, Audi has managed to produce a flat torque curve for years with its turbo engines but nobody considers them anywhere near the BMW powerplants no matter what the numerical performance is

[Jch330]

Just gonna hop in here and say a few things. 1) Turbo engines are fast but whether you prefer it or not, they are different. If you slammed on the gas in my TT S4 you would feel nothing then BOOOM it goes. That is what a turbo does (by the way people considered the S4 tt to have very little lag as well). I could just barely hear whine in the cabin until i chipped it and upped the boost, after that it was very apparent to the point that my mom thought there was a siren going off down the road.

While the lag is annoying and reduces the performance in everyday driving (if you have a flat patch to let loose in a turbo after the initial pause the power feels neverending), turbos have many benefits which have been illustrated above so i need not go in depth but mainly in consumption and weight.

There is no "right" answer here as to what is better, 3.0tt or 3.5l. Someone brought up a good point tho, you can only make a 3 series engine so big. While this is a sports sedan, it still is a sedan. It is meant for everyday driving, a huge engine can make that tough.

I take my moms v8 s4 often and it is a lot of fun, but as she says. "it gives her whiplash." While i view this as a good thing, the 335 appears to be a much more desirable car for everyday use and seemingly just as fast.

None of us can make a true judgement however as to how good, or lagging, orr heavy, or powerful the 335 engine feels until we drive it. So lets not get our hopes up too high, or already condemn an engine that nobody has yet experienced.

[voltron1011]

Originally Posted by Insider

Yes, but the CR on the 335 is higher than a lot of normally aspirated engines due to the direct fuel injection. So the 335 has lots of power even before the turbos kick in.

Thanks, Insider... That's what I was going to mention. People critisizing BMW's turbo setup have obviously not done any research into direct-injection. If they did, they'd realize that BMW would have never gone with a turbo setup without DI.

[RPM90]

Someone mentioned "ground breaking" with BMW's "new" 3.0 turbo.
Well, actually Audi beat them to it with the 2.0T FSI engine.
It is an award winner due to it's use of direct fuel injection which allows MUCH higher compression ratio (10.5:1) compared to older turbo tech.
That higher compression allows the engine to produce better low rpm torque thus further reducing "lag". The 2.0T is very appreciated for it's lack of lag.

But, as said, "lag" is relative. As turbo tech gets better and better, what was once considered "low lag" is now called "very" laggy. An example is Audi's older generation 1.8T engine. Compared to the 1.8T the 2.0T has almost no lag. However, it does in fact show it's turbo lag in some situations especially in hard braking, shift to low gear, turn and up a hill, some lag does appear. Overall though DI and turbo with higher compression ratio's makes for amazing power output.

BMW's 3.0 twin uses VERY small turbo's, but uses two of them, one per 3 cylinders. It also uses direct injection and thus higher compression.
BMW went for low boost more as an assist, as the 3.0 turbo appears to be tuned to be more of a NA engine in feel with some turbo assist at that seems to be apparent by the relatively modest boost pressure of 7.0psi.
That is pretty light, but along with 3.0 liters of displacement and high compression ration the engine should produce nearly nil "lag" as it's tuned more to be NA in power delivery. It's a really cool idea.

I love Audi's approach to turbo's as they've been doing it for a long time.
The 2.0T achieves over 200hp/207lb ft. of torque with 1 larger turbo and only 2 liters of displacement. However, the 2.0T also achieves better MPG than it's 1.8T predecessor. The BMW 3.0 turbo will not have better MPG than the NA 3.0 with 255hp. It will be less, and if you dip into boost often, expect the MPG to really drop.
The turbo tech in the BMW engine doesn't appear so much for improving power along with MPG. It seems BMW wanted more power, which it will get, but it will require more time and tuning to get the MPG up to the NA 3.0 it is replacing. Now, with the new direct injection NA 3.0 MPG and power will go up. But, a NA 3.0 with DI won't be able to match the hp and torque of the turbo 3.0.

I'm actually more impressed and looking forward to the new magnesium 3.0 with direct injection and all the BMW engine control advancements.
That should give us near 3.0 turbo power with MUCH better MPG.
With the news and rumors coming around it seems BMW is heading that way. I don't think turbo and gasoline is BMW's future. Better NA engines with high tech fuel, timing, valve lift control, higher compression, and direct injection is more advanced for them.
Oh, and then turbo that and it's even better!

[Insider]

I believe the maximum boost on the 335i is 8.5psi, not 7.0.

Originally Posted by RPM90

Someone mentioned "ground breaking" with BMW's "new" 3.0 turbo.
Well, actually Audi beat them to it with the 2.0T FSI engine.
It is an award winner due to it's use of direct fuel injection which allows MUCH higher compression ratio (10.5:1) compared to older turbo tech.
That higher compression allows the engine to produce better low rpm torque thus further reducing "lag". The 2.0T is very appreciated for it's lack of lag.

But, as said, "lag" is relative. As turbo tech gets better and better, what was once considered "low lag" is now called "very" laggy. An example is Audi's older generation 1.8T engine. Compared to the 1.8T the 2.0T has almost no lag. However, it does in fact show it's turbo lag in some situations especially in hard braking, shift to low gear, turn and up a hill, some lag does appear. Overall though DI and turbo with higher compression ratio's makes for amazing power output.

BMW's 3.0 twin uses VERY small turbo's, but uses two of them, one per 3 cylinders. It also uses direct injection and thus higher compression.
BMW went for low boost more as an assist, as the 3.0 turbo appears to be tuned to be more of a NA engine in feel with some turbo assist at that seems to be apparent by the relatively modest boost pressure of 7.0psi.
That is pretty light, but along with 3.0 liters of displacement and high compression ration the engine should produce nearly nil "lag" as it's tuned more to be NA in power delivery. It's a really cool idea.

I love Audi's approach to turbo's as they've been doing it for a long time.
The 2.0T achieves over 200hp/207lb ft. of torque with 1 larger turbo and only 2 liters of displacement. However, the 2.0T also achieves better MPG than it's 1.8T predecessor. The BMW 3.0 turbo will not have better MPG than the NA 3.0 with 255hp. It will be less, and if you dip into boost often, expect the MPG to really drop.
The turbo tech in the BMW engine doesn't appear so much for improving power along with MPG. It seems BMW wanted more power, which it will get, but it will require more time and tuning to get the MPG up to the NA 3.0 it is replacing. Now, with the new direct injection NA 3.0 MPG and power will go up. But, a NA 3.0 with DI won't be able to match the hp and torque of the turbo 3.0.

I'm actually more impressed and looking forward to the new magnesium 3.0 with direct injection and all the BMW engine control advancements.
That should give us near 3.0 turbo power with MUCH better MPG.
With the news and rumors coming around it seems BMW is heading that way. I don't think turbo and gasoline is BMW's future. Better NA engines with high tech fuel, timing, valve lift control, higher compression, and direct injection is more advanced for them.
Oh, and then turbo that and it's even better!

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by Insider

I believe the maximum boost on the 335i is 8.5psi, not 7.0.

Could be. The last spec sheet I saw I thought I remembered 7.0.
Still, 8.5 psi is on the low side.
But, again, that's not a bad thing with a relatively large displacement and small turbo's.

[hahahaha]

why turbo? When G35 and IS350 are both in V6, if you still want to use I6 in 335i, the long 3.5 inline 6 engine will be too long and messup the perfect weight disturbution. E90 M3 should be fine since V8 will be used.

Just personal thinking, no offence

[Tony]

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

1) The best normally aspirated engines (BMW 6 as an example) are lauded in part because of the characteristics associated with them in terms of engine response and feel etc... i.e the things that matter to true enthusiasts

Best? Maybe. Are you suggesting that Turbos are lacking in response and feel when compared to their N/A counterparts? “True enthusiasts” do enjoy turbos as well as N/A engines. Where do you get your definition of “true enthusiasts” from? I would think that an enthusiast would also consider the lighter weight of the Turbo engine. I also see turbos being added to enthusiast cars for drag racing and drifting. Are you saying that the drag racers and drifters aren’t “true enthusiasts” because they prefer forced induction? I’ve never heard anyone state that a Porsche 911 Turbo is lacking in “response and feel”.

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

2) A 3.5l version of the current engine would produce the same peak horsepower with a better response and feel (not to mention the return of the classic 3.5l six) without the need for more high performance tuning as the 335i engine.

Better response and feel? Have you driven the 335i? If not then how can you accurately state which one has a better feel or not. I sense a predetermined bias here. It’s okay to not like turbos but you don’t have to make stuff up.

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

After all, Audi has managed to produce a flat torque curve for years with its turbo engines but nobody considers them anywhere near the BMW power plants no matter what the numerical performance is

Wrong! The Audi 1.8 Liter Turbo engine was in “wards” top ten engines for about 4 years straight. Ahead of BMW’s inline six, Look it up.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

Why will it be heavier? 3.5l is bigger than 3l so without changes to other elements of its tune it will be more driveable than the current engine whilst being more powerful with mnore lowend torque

The engine would have to be heavier because:

1) Larger displacement requires a larger, heavier block
2) The crank, connecting rods all have to be strengthened (read" made heavier) to cope with the increased inertia caused by the larger displacement pistons.

A 3.5 liter N/A engine will be more drivable (and more powerful) than a 3.0 liter N/A engine but not a 3.0 Liter Turbo engine. Look at the torque curve of the 335i’s Turbo engine. You cannot find a Normally Aspirated engine below 4.0 liters that
1) Puts out that much torque
2) Put out that much torque at such a low RPM and remain flat pretty much thought the rev range.

You can have the big heavy engines if that’s what floats your boat. But I prefer turbos. Apparently BMW feels the same way that I do. Do you know something about power plants than BMW’s engineers doesn’t know?

[Tony]

Here's the list of wards top engines. Althought the trend appears to be going to the big/heavy, gas guzzling V8's, I still see plenty of turbos . Even ahead of the E46 330i's engine. FWIW I think that the list has some flaws and some of it is outright B.S. The RX-8's engine made it? The engine that has 159lbft of torque and gets about 19mpg highway?

2005
Audi 4.2 L V8 DOHC
Audi 3.2 L V6 DOHC FSI
Mercedes-Benz 3.2 L I6 DOHC CDI Turbodiesel
Chrysler 5.7 L V8 Hemi
Ford 4.6 L V8 Modular SOHC
General Motors 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8
Honda 3.5 L V6 J35
Honda 3.0 L V6 J30 IMA Hybrid
Mazda 1.3 L Wankel engine RENESIS
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE

2004
Audi 4.2 L V8 DOHC
BMW 3.2 L I6 S54
Chrysler 5.7 L V8 Hemi
DaimlerChrysler 5.9 L I6 Cummins turbodiesel
General Motors 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8
Honda 3.0 L V6 J30
Mazda 1.3 L Wankel engine RENESIS
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
Subaru 2.5 L H4 STi
Toyota 1.5 L I4 1NZ-FXE Hybrid Synergy Drive

2003
BMW 3.0 L I6 M54
BMW 3.2 L I6 S54
Chrysler 5.7 L V6 Hemi
Ford 6.0 L V8 Power Stroke turbodiesel
General Motors 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8
Honda 2.0 L I4 K20
Honda 3.0 L V6 J30
Mini 1.6 L I4 supercharged
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
Volkswagen 1.8 L I4 DOHC turbo

2002
BMW 3.0 L I6 M54
BMW 3.2 L I6 S54
DaimlerChrysler 5.0 L V8 SOHC
Ford 5.4 L V8 Modular SOHC
General Motors 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8
General Motors 6.6 L V8 Duramax
Honda 2.0 L I4 K20
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
Porsche 2.7 L Flat-6 DOHC
Volkswagen 1.8 L I4 DOHC turbo

2001
Audi 1.8 L I4 5-valve turbo
Audi 2.7 L V6 twin-turbo
BMW 3.0 L I6 M54
DaimlerChrysler 3.2 L V6 SOHC
Ford 5.4 L V8 Triton
General Motors 6.6 L V8 Duramax
Honda 2.0 L I4 F20C
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Porsche 2.7 L Flat-6 DOHC
Toyota 1.5 L I4 1NZ-FXE Hybrid Synergy Drive

2000
Audi 2.7 L V6 twin turbo
BMW 3.2 L I6 DOHC
DaimlerChrysler 3.2 L V6 SOHC
Ford 3.9 L V8 AJ-V8
Ford 5.4 L V8 Triton
General Motors 3.5 L V6 3500 LX5
Honda 2.0 L I4 F20C
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Porsche 3.2 L Flat-6 DOHC
Toyota 4.0 L V8 1UZ-FE DOHC

1999
Chrysler 4.7 L V8 PowerTech
General Motors 3.5 L V6 3500 LX5
Mercedes-Benz 3.2 L V6 SOHC
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE

1998
BMW 2.5 L I6 M52
BMW 3.2 L I6 DOHC
Ford 2.5 L V6 Duratec SVT
Ford 5.4 L V8 Triton
General Motors 5.7 L V8 LS1
Mazda 2.3 L V6 KJ-ZEM
Mercedes-Benz 3.2 L V6 SOHC
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Toyota 4.0 L V8 1UZ-FE DOHC
Volkswagen 1.8 L I4 DOHC turbo

[Bimmerista]

RPM90: the 335 engine will in fact, once the grade of fuel is upgraded here, be 15% more fuel efficient than the 3.0 non-turbo engine-this from Euro stats, and thanks to the more efficient use of the DI in combo with the turbo.

I have read the thread with great interest, but I am afraid that everyone is right. Ultimately, turbos are a very effective way to increase power and torque without increasing displacement. However, there is turbo lag-which is not a relative but an absolute (because the lag is in relation to the engine itself and depends upon the rpm band) and it is noticeable in every turbo engine. The jury is still out on the 335, we will see.

I personally do enjoy the performance that turbos permit, but do not like the lag. Engines without turbo which make high horsepower to litre ratios are indeed very sophisticated, and those who do so starting at lower rpms without turbo are the epitomy of sophistication and refinement (which is not easy, ask any S2000 or Rx8 owner). Increasing hp by slapping a turbo on an engine does not require a great deal of sophistication from the engine itself (just solidity from the block etc.) but it does make it more performing. Slapping a (or manny) turbos on an already sophisticated, refined high hp/litre engine (like Porsche does and BMW just did, as well as the Veyron etc.) is the nirvana for performance.

But the turbo lag is still there and those, such as myself, who do not like it will always prefer the GT3 to the 911 turbo.

[Tony]

N/A engines are in a permanent "Turbo Lag" State

[Refujeet]

Is it just me or am I the only one that likes the sound of the turbo when it spools up...My friend has a STI and I love the sounds when it hits 3k RPM.

I think it sounds awesome.